And so it begins.....

The problem here is that so far as conviction (guilty or not guilty) is concerned, the jury are judges of both fact and law. They may receive directions from the judge regarding the law, but they and they alone are the judges of whether the prosecution case is proved according to the facts they find as proved and the relevant law as explained to them by the judge. The judge in the Bristol case left open to the jury the defences posed by counsel for the 4. So the jury were entitled to decide whether the defences outlined raised a reasonable doubt in their mind as to guilt.

In my view (and I may be wrong) the Secret Barrister makes an assertion in his article on the case which overstretches the mark. He states (in terms) that the jury could find that all elements of the prosecution case were proved, but that they could still find that the prosecution was not proportionate. He impliedly relies for this assertion on the Zeigler case. In that case the High Court and then the Supreme Court considered a decision by a District Judge (Magistrates' Court) to acquit defendants to a charge of obstruction at the Excel Centre in London. The Supreme Court upheld the District Judge's decision (thereby overturning the High Court's decision to quash it). As I read it, applying the proportionality test, the District Judge found that not all the elements of the prosecution case were made out. That is quite different to saying that he ruled the bringing of the case disproportionate.

I may be wrong. I invited our legal eagles on here to comment on this last week, but I am not aware anyone did. The Secret Barrister's article was reprinted in last week's Sunday Times, and I invited commenters there (including the Secret Barrister him/herself) to comment but again no-one took me up. This may seem an obscure point, but I repeat that there is a world of difference between finding that there was a doubt regarding one or more elements of the prosecution case not proved, and the position where the case is found proved but the jury nevertheless decides to deem the prosecution inappropriate due to other views.

So it may be that the jury in the Bristol case did after all decide their verdict upon the appropriate considerations. That is not to say that they reached the same decision as you or I would have done on what has been reported of the case. But it may suggest that in the final analysis, the world is not coming to an end!

Regarding the Boris Garden Party point, I was not suggesting that there was any direct link to that and the decision in the Bristol case. But I do think that it forms part of a pattern of events which suggest that there is too little regard for truthfulness, integrity and respect for the rule of law. In order to retain the confidence of the ordinary man and woman in the street (including those who are called up for jury service) it is surely necessary to demonstrate without reservation that the law applies equally to all.

 

You and others keep making vague, doom inferred statements about "where will it end? " and "so it begins", which is an appeal to fear; as if society will crumble around our ears because some people pulled down a statue of a slave trader, and another bloke hacked lumps off one made by a guy who sexually abused his daughters.

Christ, find something worth complaining about.

 

Update.. so you don't consider the latest jury decision...
Extinction Rebellion: Jury clears protesters dragged off train roof
..cause of any concern whatsoever. Even the BBC headline is subtly supportive i.e. "dragged off roof" almost implies they were victims. Effectively the UK can now be held to ransom by any protestors who will be more confident that a jury will exonerate criminal actions because they believe it is in the public interest. You could, I suppose, explain it away it in legalese but this trend is heading towards anarchy. Jurys are now beginning to make decisions that fly in the face of actual evidence and are based on opinions and personal views